International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation

‍ ‍Home ‍ ‍Aim & Scope ‍ ‍Editorial Board ‍ ‍Archives ‍ ‍Articles ‍ ‍Author instructions ‍ ‍Online Submission‍ ‍ Contact Us‍ ‍

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The publication of articles in the International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation (IJPR) follows a rigorous peer review and ethical publishing process. IJPR adheres to the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to maintain integrity, transparency, scientific quality, and ethical standards in scholarly publication. All parties involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher, are expected to follow the highest standards of ethical conduct.

Editorial and Peer Review Process

1. Initial Processing by Editorial Assistant

All submitted manuscripts undergo preliminary screening by the Editorial Assistant to assess completeness of submission, formatting requirements, plagiarism screening, and adherence to journal guidelines. Authors may be requested to provide additional information or technical corrections before the manuscript proceeds for editorial evaluation. The estimated duration for this stage is approximately 2–7 days.

2. Editor Assignment and Evaluation

After successful initial screening, the manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor or Editorial Board member for evaluation of scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, relevance, and suitability within the scope of the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the required scientific or ethical standards may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. The estimated duration for this stage is approximately 3–7 days.

3. Awaiting Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts suitable for review are processed through a double-blind peer review system involving at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The Editorial Team may invite multiple reviewers before securing the required number of reviewer acceptances.

4. Peer Review in Progress

Reviewers are generally provided 2–4 weeks to complete their review. If a reviewer withdraws or fails to submit the review within the allotted period, additional reviewers may be assigned, which may extend the review timeline. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, provide objective scientific comments, identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, image manipulation, duplicate publication, and declare any conflicts of interest.

5. Editor Decision in Progress

After receiving reviewer reports, the Editor evaluates the reviewer comments and recommendations and makes one of the following decisions: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. The final editorial decision is based on scientific merit, ethical compliance, originality, reviewer comments, and journal standards. Significant ethical, scientific, statistical, or methodological concerns identified by reviewers or the editorial team may result in rejection of the manuscript. Authors receive reviewer comments along with the editorial decision. The editorial decision process may require a few additional days depending on reviewer responses and issue scheduling.

6. In Production

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, and final production checks. The corresponding author will receive communication from the Production Editor regarding publication timelines and galley proof corrections before publication.

Fair Play

Editors evaluate manuscripts solely based on scientific merit and intellectual content without discrimination regarding race, gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.

Confidentiality

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts and related communications. Manuscripts must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to unauthorized individuals.

Conflict of Interest

Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any financial, academic, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest that could influence manuscript evaluation or interpretation. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide unbiased and constructive scientific comments, maintain confidentiality, complete reviews promptly, identify uncited relevant literature, and report plagiarism, duplication, data fabrication, image manipulation, or ethical concerns. Personal criticism of authors is considered inappropriate.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors must provide accurate, original, and scientifically valid data with sufficient methodological detail to allow reproducibility. Fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or misleading reporting is considered unethical.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure manuscripts are original and properly cite all sources. IJPR screens all submissions using plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin. Direct copied text must be properly quoted and cited. Duplicate publication and self-plagiarism are unacceptable. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity may be rejected.

Multiple or Redundant Publication

Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is prohibited. Previously published data, figures, or images must be properly acknowledged and cited.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have significantly contributed to study conception, design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript before submission.

AI-Generated Content Policy

Authors must disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools used for writing assistance, image generation, statistical interpretation, or language editing. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Authors remain fully responsible for the scientific accuracy and originality of the manuscript.

Ethics Approval and Informed Consent

Clinical and human studies must include Institutional Ethics Committee approval number, informed consent statement, and clinical trial registration number wherever applicable. Studies should comply with the Declaration of Helsinki, ICMR guidelines, and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Patient confidentiality and identity protection must be maintained.

Data Availability and Integrity

Authors may be requested to provide raw data, statistical analysis sheets, original images, or ethics documents whenever required. Manipulation of data or images is considered scientific misconduct.

Retraction and Corrections Policy

Articles may be retracted if findings are unreliable, plagiarism is identified, duplicate publication is detected, unethical research is reported, image manipulation or fabricated data is identified, or peer review manipulation is detected. Corrections, errata, expressions of concern, or retractions may be issued according to COPE guidelines.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit appeals regarding editorial decisions with appropriate scientific justification. Appeals will be independently reviewed by the editorial board.

Consequences of Ethical Misconduct

If scientific misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript, retract the published article, inform the author’s institution, notify COPE and relevant indexing agencies, or temporarily blacklist authors from future submissions. Further actions may be taken according to COPE recommendations and institutional ethical policies.